Change.org's War and Peace Blog

Palestinian Mufti to Pope: Let's Unite Against the Jews

Charles Lenchner — 2009-05-12T06:20:00-07:00

Ack! I meant to write, Palestinian Mufti Sheikh Tamimi interrupted an interfaith dialogue meeting with the Pope and other dignitaries to denounce the occupation and Israeli policy. The New York Times reports that he urged Muslims and Christians to unite against Israel.

(Let's play fill in the blank: Muslims, Christians, ___________. What word fits? Israel, or Jews?)

My first reaction was to see what was reported on Palestinian and Arab news and opinion sites in English. Obviously, my search wasn't comprehensive, but I have a collection of sites I visit. The ones that mentioned the incident quotes Sheikh Tamimi making a perfectly understandable plea for support to end the Israeli occupation, but all the ones I saw omitted the part about Muslims and Christians needing to unite against Israel.

This is interesting. Are they omitting that key phrase because the editors of those sites clearly understand that most of the world would interpret it as a hostile statement out of place at a meeting to advance interfaith dialogue? Or perhaps because the introduction of a religious dimension to the conflict undermines the thesis that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a national conflict over land, and not a religious conflict with Jews?

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think most enlightened Palestinians are embarrased by Tamimi, who sabotages Palestinian PR efforts. My advice: don't omit what he said from the conversation - pay attention to it and respond. Whatever logic it is that would compel 'Muslims and Christians to unite against Israel' would surely be applicable to calls for 'Christians and Jews to unite against Palestinians.' Religious fundamentalism is the meta-logic within which all fundamentalisms operate - Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. Opposing one of them but not the other is not only cowardly - it's bad PR.

Regionalize the Conflict

Charles Lenchner — 2009-05-12T05:49:00-07:00

Guest post by Ben Murane

Naomi Chazan, a leading Israeli peacenik and former Meretz MK, made an American tour recently to bolster support among American Jews for progressive causes in Israel. (She's presently President of the New Israel Fund.)

Fiery, witty and on the offensive, Chazan leapt immediately into the speculation about Bibi, Obama and a two state solution and made strict recommendations to Americans: regionalize the solution to the conflict.

Stupidity, she said, is repeating a failure while expecting different results. The Olso process failed and to simply hope that Israel and Palestine can be sweet talked back to the table may have worked eight years ago. But now with Iran influencing Hamas and Hezbollah, the conflict at home is tangled in wider problems. Obama, she says, has done the intelligent thing in dealing with Iran, Syria and the Palestinians together with Israel.

The hypocrisy of Israel's nuclear program existing unacknowledged alongside the battle against Iranian nuclear proliferation stings in the Arab world. Iran's funding of Hamas -- more hardline than the average Palestinian -- by outsiders scuttles diplomacy. Syria's complicity with Hezbollah (also aided by fundamentalists further afield than Lebanon) is the same. The interwoven influences demand addressing all of it or none of it.

It is also no longer reasonable to expect that Israel and Palestine will reach an amiable final status agreement. Not with Bibi Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman at the Israeli helm. Not with a neutered Abbas and recalcitrant Hamas divided on the Palestinian side. It may be time, Chazan suggested, for a serious non-military intervention by the international community. Meaning, America and the Quartet should force a settlement agreeable to both populaces upon their politicians. The is even a silver lining for politicians answering to outraged hardliners: "Hey, it's not my fault," they can claim, "the Americans made me do it!"

Furthermore, she said that such an imposed agreement (she didn't like that word and preferred -- "non-military diplomatic intervention") would necessarily be two states for two peoples. "I don't care what is said by otherwise very smart people in the pages of the New York Review of Books," she said with a smirk. "I am a real person, my country is real. The alternative to a two state solution is not a one state solution, it's more of what we have now, wars on the backs of civilians."

That said, she demanded an answer of American Jews: "You voted Obama by 78%...It's as if there's a total disconnect between the liberal values of American Jews and their attitude to Israel...Israel's existence is totally dependent on Israel's soul. An end to the discomfort." An end to the occupation of another people.

We need more progressive voices like Naomi Chazan. But we need there here, home grown in the U.S. of A. Be one.

[Want to be a guest poster? Send me snappy content!]

Video: Uri Avnery - Should the US Arm Israel?

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-22T09:24:00-07:00

Solidarity activists claiming that the US should stop giving weapons to Israel are easy to find. Careful, cautious, realistic policy analysis on the topic is not so common.

Enjoy.

Durban II: Pro-Israel Group Trots Out Anti-Libyan Palestinian

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-20T04:24:00-07:00

Israel and the United States are among the countries boycotting the UN conference against racism, known as Durban II. Palestinian Israeli parliamentarians were present:

Balad chairman MK Jamal Zahalka, who will attend Durban II, addressed the crowd at the NGO Civil Society Forum March in Geneva on Sunday, presenting himself as a Palestinian victim of "Israeli racist apartheid" and concluding his speech by proclaiming: "No peace without justice."

Opposition to the proceedings in Geneva (site of Durban II) is based on three things. First, that it is run by third world countries with poor track records on human rights and ethnic prejudice; second, that the Issue of Palestinian will be raised in a way that is disporportionate when compared to other issues in the world today; and third that the focus on Palestine includes antisemitic attacks on Jews, the state of Israel, and the right of Israeli Jews to enjoy the right of self determination.

The problem with Durban II is it shows the ability of dozens of countries and their diplomatic officials, under the auspices of the United Nations, to make a superficial claim that they are moving to rid the world of racial prejudice, by way of smearing Israel and discrediting the ideology that says that Jews have the right to self-determination.

I think Israel should be taken to task for the racism in that country, and practiced by that country. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy it when other offenders are taken to task. Israel Matzav is vibrating with glee at this little setup: A Palestinian who was tortured and falsely imprisoned in Libya for nearly a decade is somehow given permission to speak by the Libyan Ambassador. He promptly accuses Libya of scapegoating foreigners (as in his case) leading to his own inestimable suffering.

Pretty good prank - if that's the right term for such a serious issue.

(The Dry Bones strip at the top does NOT reflect my own thoughts. It does a good job of reflecting mainstream Israeli opinion.)

Tel-Aviv Celebrates 100 Years

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-17T05:07:00-07:00

The first modern Hebrew city was founded 100 years ago on some sand dunes north of Jaffa. Today Tel-Aviv plays host to the largest gay pride march in the Middle East and calls itself 'a city without interruption,' the Hebrew version of 'the city that never sleeps.'

For Israeli Palestinians living in Jaffa, the narrative is just a little bit different. Not to mention the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere still calling themselves 'Jaffans' because that is where they actually come from.

Here is a great clip that pulls together different narratives and juxtaposes them side by side. (Thanks Jewschool!) It's a visual technique that does a real service to helping us experience the 'issues' of the region as 'stories' of real people. Check it out:

Here's a little of my Tel-Aviv story....

Part of my youth was spent in Ramat Aviv, one of the neighborhoods adjacent to Tel-Aviv University. The heart of the neighborhood was the area around the old mercaz, or shopping center with the 'Co-op' supermarket. It had a plaza with an ramshackle kiosk in the center, a movie theater with wooden seats, an old-fashioned cafe/pastry shop, and the local health clinic.

The homes surrounding the mercaz were almost entirely small 2 bedroom apartment buildings laid out in rows, three or four stories high. In the 70s, class differences were not so great, which meant that students lived side by side with professors, school teachers, shop clerks, secretaries and other white collar jobs. The neighborhood was diverse, but overwhelmingly Ashkenazi.

We also had Beit Brodetsky, a large hostel for new immigrants. This particular hostel was used for new arrivals with education, who had a connection to the university, or from an educated background - but not enough resources to move directly into a rented apartment. The children had an amazing time together. I remember playing with kids from Turkey, the Soviet Union, Argentina and the United States, among other places.

Ramat Aviv of that time represents of a kind of Tel-Aviv that is now buried and gone forever. It was, as they say, a simpler time. The schools were not fenced and guarded, allowing kids of all ages to scamper about being late, early, or cutting class altogether. Not as many people owned a car, there weren't any chain stories, and every store had a proud small business owner to unlock in the morning and greet arriving customers by name. I can still picture the owners of the toy store, the shoe store, the used book store and the bicycle repair shop. Each of those places had a special smell, which they lost decades ago.

It's true that all this nostalgia is from before I learned about the conflict, met any Arabs, or thought in political terms. It might be useful for some to realize that Israel is not only the sum total of Jewish allegiance to a jewish State. It is also the sum total of many very local patriotisms. In my mind - and I'm not alone - Tel-Aviv is also a holy place, one without the complications of two-thousand year old ruins and sites of religious veneration.

For those of you who see Jerusalem as the Israeli capitol - go ahead and have your Israel. My Israel is the one that looks to Tel-Aviv, before all those highways, high-rises and fast-food joints. I can't help but think that normalizing Israel into being 'just another country' instead of carrying all the burdens of being a Jewish State won't actually be better for Tel-Aviv.

Can the Zionist Left and Palestinian-Israeli Parties Unite?

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-14T19:37:00-07:00

Daniel Gavron, a veteran leftist in Israel, has made a brave proposal. Calmly analyzing the current (miserable) political situation in Israel, he arrives at a simple conclusion: the Jewish left should unite with the Arab parties in the Knesset.

...the Jewish left must not be afraid to join up with the Arab citizens of Israel. There are currently 11 members of the Arab parties in the Knesset, but there could be as many as 17 if the Arabs bothered to vote in general elections at the same rate that they vote in local elections. The Jewish left should invite the Arabs into an equal partnership, forming an inclusive social democratic party that could be an alternative to the Netanyahu regime. If the approach is made in the right way, the response would surely be positive.

The Zionist left had definitely seen better days. It's voters saw Labor and Meretz adopt the positions of Kadima, and decided to vote for the real thing instead of weak imitators. Israeli Arabs used to award a few Knesset seats to Labor and Meretz. A vibrant coalition of Arabs and Jews might not only expand the size of the left in the Knesset by increasing Arab voter turnout, it could also serve as the needed spark of hope to alter the mindset of Israelis AND Palestinians.

Of course, there already is a political party made up of both Jews and Arabs - Hadash. But it is tainted by too much history, as the parliamentary faction led by the Israeli Communist Party. A grand Israeli left would require massive compromise: Zionists and Arabs would need to accept working together in a party that is only a coalition of short and medium term interests, with no real ideology binding them together. The Jews can still be Zionists, and hope that this will preserve a Jewish-majority state of Israel. Arab leaders will need to adjust to seeing liberal Jews as constituents, and tone down nationalist rhetoric in favor of policy changes that gradually turn Israel into a 'state of all its citizens'.

Many Israeli-Palestinians would probably go along with that, at least for awhile.

I'm not optimistic that this will happen anytime soon. But it's bold. Let's hope Gavron generates some debate around this idea.

Easter Roundup for Palestine

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-12T08:54:00-07:00

The Pope:

“Reconciliation, difficult, but indispensable, is a precondition for a future of overall security and peaceful co-existence, and it can only be achieved through renewed, persevering and sincere efforts to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict,” Pope Benedict said today in front of the loggia of the 16th century St. Peter’s Basilica in his Easter message.

How Christians Invented Zionism: An Easter Thought: President John Adams is an example of that trend:

More ardently still, John Adams envisioned "a hundred thousand Israelites...[as] well disciplined as the French army" marching into Palestine and conquering it. "I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation," the ex-president wrote...in 1819.

Easter celebrated by Roman Catholics in Gaza:

(Side note: while watching this, Google ads showed me an add for Jdate asking if I was interested in Israeli girls. I can't help but think how strange that would be for say, Catholic supporters of Palestine.)

Today is Easter for many Christians - but not all. In Palestine, many observe the Orthodox date. For all of them, and all of you - happy Easter, may all of us be blessed with peace on this day and forever more.

One State Solution - Notes from the TARI Conference

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-11T13:55:00-07:00

I hope the good folks at the Trans Arab Research Institute will forgive me for reserving a spot and then failing to show up at the conference held on March 28-29 in Boston. It looked to be a wonderfully educational event with a diverse group of speakers discussing the future of the 'one state solution'.

Nadia Hijab, one of the most respect advocates for Palestinian rights in this country, attended and spoke there. She writes:

One important fact (simple but of utmost importance) was reiterated by several Palestinians - from the occupied territories, from within Israel, and in exile. They said loud and clear that working for the one-state solution means working with Israeli Jews. As acting TARI chair Hani Faris put it, "The idea of one state cannot fly without a Palestinian wing and a Jewish wing."

This cannot be overestimated. One of the most significant problems within the Palestinian national movement is the sense that Israelis are only the enemy, the opposition to be overcome. It's been rare to see expressions of 'we're all in this together' over the years. So what if that's an understandable position, given the history of dispossession and ongoing repression? People interested in change don't stop at the point of understanding, they ask what is necessary.

In the past, viewpoints that took into account Jewish suffering and tried to look at Zionist history with some degree of sympathy come mostly from supporters of the two state solution. A faction of the Palestinian movement - led by Arafat - seemed to be saying, let's cut our losses and accept 22% of historic Palestine. This is a far cry from serious engagement with Israeli Jews as a national group with rights to remain on the land.

So it's an irony of history that the one state movement, descended ideologically from anti-Zionists more or less committed to the destruction of the Jewish State, are now at the forefront of embracing its own 'jewish wing.'

While I'm not committed to the one state idea, I do believe that the ultimate solution in Israel/Palestine will have to have two wings - Jewish and Palestinian. It cannot be otherwise; conflicts end with the needs of both sides are met. While active in Israel, I was part of movements that worked in partnership with Palestinians. Palestinian activists did not always feel the need to reciprocate. Palestinian politics in the West Bank and Gaza has no need for Jewish partnerships to be legitimate.

But this might be changing. If the awareness that Jewish-Arab partnership is essential for any kind of solution to work, perhaps this can create a positive competition, where in Israel and Palestine, change-seeking political groups all work hard to cultivate the proper alliances and surrogates from the 'other' side.

Here is the rest of Nadia Hijab's article:

'Ehud Olmert's nightmare is at hand. Not only does the former Israeli prime minister now really have to fight those corruption charges. He also faces the realization of his fears that the Palestinians might give up on a two-state solution in favor of a struggle for equal rights that would mean, as he put it, the "end of the Jewish state."

Yo, Ehud, that struggle is a growing movement, and it isn't a threat to Jews - on the contrary, Jews are very much a part of it.

Just last weekend in Boston, American and/or Israeli Jews accounted for nearly a third of the 29 speakers at a conference organized by TARI (Trans Arab Research Institute) with the William Joiner Center at the University of Massachusetts.

This is the second major public conference on how to achieve a single democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis. The first was held in London in November, and a third is slated for Toronto in June.

In a sign of the one-state movement's persistence, the conference was over-subscribed weeks before it was held; dozens were turned away because the hall only seated 500 people. Those who got in remained glued to their seats as one intense presenter followed another, in spite of limited time for questions and, on day two, no lunch. For my part, I remain agnostic. As I said in my remarks at the conference, both states must provide equality for all their citizens - Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, women or men, whatever their ethnicity. And, by the way, this isn't currently the case in either the established Israeli state or the putative Palestinian state.

In other words, even if two states are established, Israel cannot continue to be a state that privileges its Jewish citizens over its non-Jewish citizens. So either one or two states would mean the end of a Jewish state - although not of the state of Israel.

Besides, I believe other vital challenges face the Palestinians, including how to keep Palestinians physically on the land of Palestine, and how to effectively and non-violently challenge a leadership that represents at best a quarter of the Palestinian people so as to prevent the abrogation of Palestinian rights.

I share the view of policy analyst Phyllis Bennis who warned at the conference that the United States might seek to impose a mini-state with minimal sovereignty and rights.

That's why my talk focused on an analysis of the sources of non-violent power available to the Palestinian people, including economic, moral, cultural, legal, and political power.

One important fact (simple but of utmost importance) was reiterated by several Palestinians - from the occupied territories, from within Israel, and in exile. They said loud and clear that working for the one-state solution means working with Israeli Jews. As acting TARI chair Hani Faris put it, "The idea of one state cannot fly without a Palestinian wing and a Jewish wing."

Political scientist Laila Farsakh acknowledged this would be difficult given the anger Palestinians feel at Israel after Gaza and given their history of dispossession at Israel's hands. As one strategy to overcome this anger, she suggests a debate on identity that would cover the past and present role of Jews in resisting Zionism. Another is to examine treatment of Jews in Arab societies.

Related Stories
gaza-girl-destruction-banner_1.jpg
Israel on trial

Netanyahu Takes Over

Israeli Military cloaks abuses

Changing the rules of war

Israel's new government: Netanyahu coalition sworn in
There is no "monolithic Jewish voice," Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti reminded, adding that it is anti-Semitic to claim otherwise. He pointed to the "disproportionate number of Jews" in the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel until Palestinian human rights are achieved.

And political scientist As'ad Ghanem emphasized that no one can decide for a people what their national consciousness is: "I know who I am as a Palestinian; I cannot decide for the Israelis who they are."

As for the Jews, several referred to the way that Zionism had subverted the values of Judaism, and highlighted alternative discourses. As law philosopher Ori Ben-Dor put it, "Zionism abuses the Jewish memory and the humanist message of the holocaust." Historian Norton Mezvinsky said Palestinians and other Arabs have not been the only victims of Zionism.

Historian Gabriel Piterberg held up the poetry of the late Avot Yeshurun as a model of blending narratives and identities by mixing Arabic and Yiddish idiom into Hebrew poetry.

Anthropologist Smadar Lavie said a common struggle against the oppression of Jews of Arab descent and Palestinian Arabs offered a way out of Zionism towards co-existence. Historian Ilan Pappe pointed to many concrete "de-Zionising" projects on the ground, including shared kindergartens.

A remarkable aspect of the conference was the way nearly all speakers highlighted the Zionist project - creating an exclusivist state - as the root of the problem, and discussed ways to challenge it.

Civil rights advocate Nancy Murray and others suggested presenting the attack on Gaza in the context of how Israel was created as well as pointing to the parallels of the one-state discourse with the values Americans uphold.

One of the few - perhaps only - Zionist speakers at the conference, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti, came to bury Zionism not to praise it. "As a Zionist, I wanted a Jewish state but that option is abrogated. The 'one state' is already here, the only question is what kind of state it will be." Many critiqued the two-state political platform as the "savior of Zionism" - especially well argued by Nadim Rouhana.

A shared theme was the urgent warning that future Israeli assaults on Palestinians cannot be ruled out. Ilan Pappe and this author drew the audience's attention to the Israeli High Court decision to allow 100 Israeli extremists, whose leader belonged to a banned Israeli party, to march in the Israeli Arab town of Umm El Fahem guarded by thousands of heavily armed Israeli security forces.

This is a scary echo of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's insistence on walking through Al Aqsa mosque, the spark that lit the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000 and set the stage for the brutal crushing of the Palestinian Authority in 2002. It is especially so given the loud calls for the transfer of the Israeli Arab population or denial of citizenship, most vociferously by Israel's new foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman.

A major theme was the need to reconstitute the Palestinian body politic. Political scientist Karma Nabulsi outlined existing efforts and strategies as she reviewed how the "discourse about solutions has derailed and disenfranchised the Palestinian popular collective and excludes the people as the source of legitimacy and sovereignty."

Several participants noted the need to move from discussion of the concept of one state to concrete strategies on how to get there to address not just agnosticism but outright opposition among many Palestinians, Israelis and the rest of the world. As law professor George Bisharat put it, one-staters need to address the "image that one state is utopian and unattainable."

Stating that "We are still at the first question," As'ad Ghanem offered a particularly frank critique. The Jewish state, the Islamic state and the two-state options all have more public support. The difficult questions are:

* Who are the citizens of the one-state, Israeli or Palestinian?

* What would be its relationship to the Jewish Diaspora and the Arab national movement?

* How could Palestinians and Israelis be convinced it would serve their needs?

In offering concrete strategies, Omar Barghouti's examples included ways in which restitution of inherent rights could be achieved without harming acquired rights.

The discussion of concrete steps challenged my agnosticism. So did the passion and creativity of the debate. The best vision of the one-state solution does make the alternative debates "barren," Ghada Karmi put it.

Think about it. Who's defending the two-state option today? The Palestinian Authority, its case ever weaker against the decades-long clanging of Israeli bulldozers as they colonize Palestinian land and demolish homes.

And the realists in the United States, Europe, and Israel, whose core argument is that a Palestinian state is the only way to save a majority Jewish state - an argument that does not inspire.

Those who support a two-state solution must do better if they want to hang on to hearts and minds. For, make no mistake, as American politicians are fond of saying, the adherents of the one-state movement share a faith. And fear and brute force - whether exercised by Israel, America, or the Palestinian Authority - are no match for faith.

Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington D.C.

Former Congressman Gilchrest on the Israel Lobby

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-10T06:41:00-07:00

Courtesy of MondoWeiss.

This is a Republican talking about the methods and impacts of the pro-Israeli occupation lobby working Capitol Hill. It's sad. I'm grateful to him for speaking out.

At first I was worried that it might have some tinge of Israel-hatred or antisemitism. But then I saw MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum linking to it. That's a kosher seal of approval in my book.

(On April 7, 2009, a public hearing on the "True Costs and Benefits of US Military Aid to the Middle East, 1980-2010)," was held on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C.)

Passover Thoughts from Rabbis for Human Rights

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-08T10:08:00-07:00

My liberation is not complete until all are free. in that spirit, I'm reproducing a note from Rabbi Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights.

PASSOVER THOUGHTS
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman

We all know that Pesakh is a time where Jews traditionally clean their homes of khametz (leavened grain products) and that many speak of cleaning our souls of khametz as well. Many traditional sources draw a link between the swelling that takes place as part of the leavening process, and the exaggerated pride and self importance which becomes arrogance. This may seem like a personal, introspective thought more appropriate for the High Holy Days than for Pesakh`s emphasis on the collective. However, it can certainly be applied on a national, collective basis as well. In fact, nationalism itself all too often takes on an extremely chauvinistic tone. Each of you, wherever these Pesakh thoughts reach you, can apply this to the various collectives of which you are a part. Where does healthy pride and self-respect end, and where does arrogance begin? In the words of the seminal sociologist of racism, Gordon Allport, when do in-groups create out-groups? I will offer a few thoughts in the Israeli context.

We Israelis tend to believe that the laws that apply to the rest of the world don`t apply to us. As the Tamir commission worked to create the Israeli Wisconsin Plan, we often suggested that more attention be paid to studies conducted on similar programs around the world. These studies indicated that very few programs actually reduced unemployment, and almost all of them increased poverty. I have no doubt that many of the preeminent scholars on the commission were familiar with the studies, but almost nobody on the commission was willing to explain how these studies impacted on the Israeli plan. It was as if these studies simply didn`t apply to us. (For some bureaucrats, ideologues and those who saw their narrow self interests served by reducing the welfare roles, increasing employment was never the goal.)

Most Israelis truly believe that we have the most moral army in the world. Looking at armies around the world, it may be true that few would do as well ours were they to be facing the situations that the Israeli army faces. However, that is cold comfort given what ought to be our demand that the Israeli army live up to the higher standard mandated by the Jewish Tradition as we understand it. Furthermore, given the evil inherent in warfare, we must do more to avoid the situations in which the Israeli army, or any other army, must put its morality to the test. While I have very serious concerns about the conduct of the Israeli army in the recent Gaza War, and no illusions about the morality of some of those we face, I first ask whether we could have avoided the renewal of rockets on Sderot that precipitated the war. As I have written previously, few Israelis are aware of the connection between the mood in Gaza and our failure to uphold our commitments in the June cease fire agreement to open up the border crossings and let in essential goods. What would have happened if Gazan civilians had more of their basic humanitarian needs met and saw that Israel could be trusted to abide by agreements? What would have happened had we spoken to Hamas? What would have happened had we taken more decisive steps to ending the Occupation? We might have found ourselves in exactly the same position, but I suspect not.

The insistent, blind and arrogant belief that we have the most moral army in the world has become sop to our conscience insuring that we will not have the most moral army in the world. By internalizing a response to an often hostile international community, we have both absolved ourselves of the vigilance necessary to maintain our own standards and given ourselves an excuse to ignore international standards. One reason for an independent State inquiry into what happened in Gaza is to remove the khametz of arrogance from our collective consciousness. Even as we all pray that our worst suspicions are unfounded, an inquiry forces us to admit the possibility that our children might have committed acts which contradict what the vast majority of Israelis want to believe of ourselves. Admitting that it is possible is the first step to making sure that it not be possible.

One of the most painful moments in my life was the moment that I realized that I could no longer say "We have the most moral army in the world." I want to be able to say those words. I don`t know enough about other armies to say whether we are less moral. Leaving comparisons aside, I simply can not ignore the mounting evidence that the Israeli army co-opted its own legal department and the ethicists to justify what it wanted to do in the name of protecting our soldiers, even as the Army Rabbinate distributed pamphlets encouraging akhzariut (cruelty). There is no consensus, even within RHR, as to what happened in the Gaza War. That is another one of the reasons we join our fellow Israeli human rights organizations in calling for an independent State inquiry not in the hands of the army. However, we must face our own pain to free ourselves from the chains that enslave our minds and prevent us from actualizing our own most deeply cherished beliefs and desires.

In Israel, the khametz of arrogance leads us to oppress our fellow Israeli Jews because we are the Jewish State protecting world Jewry from oppression and can make programs work here that have not worked elsewhere. We can turn Sudanese refugees back at the borders because we who suffered from closed borders could not possibly be responsible for doing to others what was done to us. We can legally expropriate land, evict people from their homes and demolish the homes of others because our legal system would not allow a contradiction between the legal and the ethical, and we have nothing to learn from international law used by a hostile world to attack us. We can fight wars without betraying our own values because we have the most moral army in the world.

Author of Freedom, help us on this Holiday of Freedom to rid ourselves of the khametz of arrogance that enslaves our personal and collective conscious in so many spheres. In so doing, may we be freed to be Your partners in building the world You would have us create.

Pesakh Sameakh V`Kasher - Wishing You a Joyous and Kosher Pesakh

Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director
RHR

What Causes Bias on Israel/Palestine?

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-07T05:22:00-07:00

Bryan Caplan of EconLog has written a wonderfully dispassionate analysis of some 'bias errors' in comprehending the issue of Israel/Palestine. One approach is to examine the "enlightened preference":

The key idea is that you give subjects two surveys. The first tests objective knowledge; the second elicits policy preferences. The idea is to see if - controlling for other respondent characteristics - people who know more want different policies.

Of course, this might not work; would partisans even be able to agree on a set of facts? Maybe not on many of them, but a few stand out as 'objective.' The number of Palestinians registered as refugees is a fact; whether or not all of them deserve that status is not.

If we did such a test, would we find that those who are more knowledgeable of the actual facts have a policy preference that tilts towards Israel or Palestine? Remember that the numbers won't mean jack; this tests for trends, not absolute numbers. Even if there are more Americans who support Israel, this would only see if those who know the most about the issue are also pro-Israel.

One of the commenters on the site points out that in the United States, awareness of foreign policy issues corresponds to education level and news consumption habits, and therefore to class. Since the upper classes tend to support the status quo, the enlightened preference approach might discover that those who know more support current US policy and lean towards Israel.

Understanding bias can help illuminate the landscape of arguments over Israel/Palestine. The site also mentions 'recency bias.' This is our human tendency to make recent news feel more urgent, true and significant than old news. As a result, our time frame for examining the conflict is always at risk of being shortened. When bombs were going off in Israel, Palestinians argued for lengthening the time frame, so that the causes of violence would be part of the story. When Israel invaded Gaza, leaving horrific scenes of destruction, Israelis (successfully) fought against recency bias, but making sure that the time frame was extended to include all the rockets fired from Gaza in recent years. (But no further!)

My experience is that when students who do not have an emotional connection to the issue take a class in say, Middle Eastern history, they discover that both sides have an interest in manipulating the story so as to emphasize one narrative at the expense of the other. Folks standing in the middle have a hard time indeed. Try telling one group that the Jewish history of persecution and genocide is integral to our understanding, and they are likely to accuse you of being pro-Israel, by default. Try telling the other group that the Palestinian experience of exile and dispossession is at the heart of the conflict, and must be addressed by an Israel that takes responsibility for that history - and they will be sure you are blinded by sympathy for the Palestinians.

Over time, fair minded folks tend to gravitate towards one narrative or the other, depending on what feels more urgent, or aligns better with ones views on other issues. Forcing people in the middle to choose is the job of partisans on both sides.

Allow me to suggest that this is unfortunate. A more empowered and engaged middle ground would do more for peace than the scoring of a few more points by one side against the other.

Jim Zogby: "Israelis did what they had to do"

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-05T08:20:00-07:00

Dr. James Zogby is a well known Arab-American opinion leader. He runs the Arab-American Institute, a non-partisan organization that promotes the inclusion of that community in US political life. I consider him to be one of the savviest Arab-Americans active today.

Haaretz sat down to interview him, and reading it felt like drinking froma tall glass of cool water. He says things clearly, pressing his cause but recognizing the weaknesses of the Arab cause at the same time. Unlike many, he points out that Israel had a pretty good case for attacking Gaza*:

"Israelis did what they had to do, it's a war, I'm not faulting them for doing that. They do propaganda well, and Arabs are horrible at propaganda, and they do it miserably. I was watching the networks, and CNN had their special analyst on, pointing to the area around Gaza and saying that Israeli people there are afraid every day because of the rocket attacks."

Isn't it true?

"It's true, there is no question that these rockets were terrorist, they were an abomination. Hamas and its leaders have done enormous damage to the Palestinians and to the Palestinian cause from the time they began back in the 90s. What kind of group trains young people to kill themselves and kill innocent kids? I've never supported them and never liked their tactics. The Palestine I knew people dreamed about was not a Palestine Hamas wants to create. The Palestine that I grew up and heard about and drew inspiration was of Mahmud Darwish, the poets and the painters, the people who loved their land and their villages, not these guys.

"I understand how angry people are because of the occupation but I think that the problem on the Arabs' side was that they believed that if their cause was just, it would be understood. And justice doesn't win. If justice won, the Indians would be running America.

This quote has so many gems....

We don't hear enough well articulated critiques of Hamas, it's tactics, strategy, or political agenda. There is a popular misconception that since Israel is the strong party and the Palestinians are weak, that all of our efforts should be on one side the scale. This is the same logic that fanatic supporters of Israel use to excuse themselves. In truth, if Hamasnik attitudes are causing harm to the Palestinian cause, would it not be quite useful to point this out and distance oneself from them?

"If justice won, the Indians would be running America." I love this. So many activists resent the use of the word peace, and instead seek to throw in the word "justice" as if peace was some kind of opposition. it's the logic of "no justice, no peace," a way of saying without being explicit that until your preferred version of justice is met, then violence is not only expected, anticipated, understandable, but it might very well be justified, glorious, and honorable. After all, if (your version of) justice is a precondition for peace, and peace is the ultimate goal, then violence in the service of justice is not only defensible, it's necessary.

(This is the mirror image of those who claim that violence directed against terrorists is always justified. After all, if the motive is to prevent terrorism, then violent acts in the service of that goal are not only defensible, they are the epitome of just action. This neglects the fact that the war on terror is often only the cover for other agendas, such as political victory, theft of resources, and terrorizing a civilian population into submission.)

Justice in the end is not a precondition for peace, even if you attach great value to it. Not because we don't want justice; rather, justice is not some objective standard thrown around by the people who are 'right' until the people who are 'wrong' are finally defeated on the field of battle or international opinion. There are many versions of justice floating around, with devoted constituences for all of them. Getting from here to there isn't a linear path in which 'what was taken by force is restored by force,' as one version of justice has it.

Zogby has a some advice:

"It's nice that Arabs think that America can say to Israel: 'Get out of the West Bank' and it happens. But it's not going to happen. I believe the Arabs have to start doing which they didn't do 20 years ago. To begin to develop an alternative path, to create a vision so compelling people that will be drawn to it. I wouldn't suggest that sheikhs - given the opinion in the region - travel to Jerusalem and say: 'Let's have peace,' but they can talk about the possible future.

It would be wrong not to notice that some folks ARE actually doing this. I've read things by Mazen Qumsiyah and Ali Abunimah that articulate a vision of the future some will find compelling. But in the main, the Palestinian political forces in Palestine have not taken this important lesson to heart.

If you want political victory, you have to tell a story that places your opposition in the winner's circle together with your side, in the end. "Come the revolution" said the young man, "we shall all leave in peace and plenty." The Hamas version is "come the revolution, we shall have Sharia law and the Jews will be defeated." That stands in stark contrast to the South African model, where the ANC gave whites hope that a multi-racial society would not only be the right thing to do, but represents a preferrable alternative.

Read the rest of the interview here.

*note: I disagree that Israel had a valid case for attacking Gaza.

Seven Jewish Children - A Play for Gaza

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-04T11:26:00-07:00

Caryl Churchill wrote this play shortly after the Israeli invasion of Gaza as a cry of protest. Shortly after it came out, parts of the Jewish establishment in Britain got a little irate:

Some even accused Churchill of blood libel, of perpetrating in Seven Jewish Children the centuries-old lie, used to incite homicidal anti-Jewish violence, that Jews ritually murder non-Jewish children. A spokesman for the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Jerusalem Post that the "horrifically anti-Israel" text went "beyond the boundaries of reasonable political discourse."

Tony Kushner and Alissa Solomon wrote about the play in the Nation, connecting the current furor with related incidents such as the suppression of the play 'My Name is Rachel Corrie' in New York City. Kushner and Solomon aren't saying though, that the words of Seven Jewish Children should be taken lightly:

There are passages, particularly in an ugly monologue near the play's conclusion, that are terribly painful to experience, especially for Jews.

I read this extended quote, and understood right away why this is so infuriating to so many supporters of Israel.

Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the whole world knows why shouldn't she know? tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she's got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I'm not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist now, tell her it's the fog of war, tell her we won't stop killing them till we're safe, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen, tell her they're animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her.

The thing is, I've been in countless conversations in Israel and with Jews in the US where people said these things. Even on this very site, there are individuals who express such sentiments. It's a service to the truth that we hear these difficult and painful things.

This sentence:

Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I'm not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us.

Is as close to the heart of why Israeli and American Jewish political culture is the way it is. To change it, we need to open up our hearts and take it in. What do we have to offer that can replace such self serving venom with basic human solidarity? I'm not sure that the rage we feel at the people who think this way is the most effective tool in our kit.

Read the entire play here.

Watch the first half below:

Arab Summit Concludes in Qatar. Yawn.

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-03T06:06:00-07:00

The Economist helps outsiders understand what Arab Summits are good for. These are meetings of the Arab League, a regional organization with 22 members, including Palestine.

“The only use of summits,” said Salama Ahmed Salama in Egypt’s daily, al-Shorouk, “is that they sharpen trends of rejection and opposition to these regimes.” “The only novelty they bring is new divisions,” chimed Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of al-Quds al-Arabi, a daily published in London.

My first class on Middle East Studies was in high school. Our excellent teacher explained the themes in the first class: unity and division. The Arab world has a strong, emotional instinct towards 'unity', a word with heavy emotional baggage coming from Islamic culture as well as anti-imperialist political language. The flip side of that attraction is the reality that the Arab world is huge, and fraught with divisions that cannot be papered over with abstract calls for unity.

Oil rich and wealthy Arab nations have different imperatives that poor ones. Those with large Shia minorities (or majorities) have different calculations that those almost entirely Sunni. North African countries like Morocco have a difference set of calculations vis-a-vis Europe than say, Oman. Some Arab countries are propped up by the West, while others are constantly undermined by the West. The idea that your ethno-linguistic grouping would overwhelm all these factors and create a shared, compelling interest is patently ridiculous. What makes it all even more farcical is how the existing divisions are dealt with. Instead of a mature understanding that a diverse community will have diverse views (a good thing) different sides of any given issue will denounce the other for the temerity of 'breaking unity.'

The unity that never existed.

They did agree on one thing though:

With 17 heads of state in attendance, the meeting did agree on one thing, however. Fellow Arab leaders rallied around Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, in a chorus of condemnation against the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which has ordered his arrest on charges of organizing the extermination, rape and forcible transfer of a large part of the civilian population of Darfur.

All those with power agree that those in power should be protected. All those with power agree that minorities and the weak should be left to their own devices when fending off the genocidal authority of the state. Of course, that's not the view on Israel.

Arab diplomacy would gain a lot from adherence to principles that apply equally in Gaza and Darfur, within Israel and within Egypt. But don't hold your breath.

Last Chance for a Two-State Peace Agreement

Charles Lenchner — 2009-04-01T04:09:00-07:00

A bipartisan group of heavy lifters came out recently with an important document: A Last Chance for a Two State Israel-Palestine Peace Agreement. If it was any other group, I might yawn; but check out the list of signatories:

The U.S./Middle East Project has released recommendations for U.S. Middle East peacemaking submitted to the administration of President Barack Obama by a bipartisan group of ten former senior government officials: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Chuck Hagel, Lee H. Hamilton, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, Thomas R. Pickering, Brent Scowcroft, Theodore C. Sorensen, Paul A. Volcker, and James D. Wolfensohn.

This is a very elite group. Their goal is to push Obama, to encourage him to be firm in implementing what is the only reasonable strategy for getting to a two state solution:

The document calls for putting serious pressure on all parties to begin accelerated negotiations toward a solution roughly along the lines of most recent two-state proposals: Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, with only minor and reciprocal adjustments allowed; division of Jerusalem, with Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty, and unimpeded access from both sides to their respective holy sites in the Old City; a resolution of the refugee problem "consistent with the two-state solution," i.e., that would not allow general return to Israel but would acknowledge the injustice of the expulsion and provide generous compensation for resettlement in the new state of Palestine or elsewhere. There's plenty to argue about in these elements, as in other details of the plan, but there's little denying that something along these lines is the only chance for survival of the two-state solution.

[From the Nation's The Notion.]

Here's my question: if the latest diplomatic push fails, if the situation a year from now is worse, what then? Is there a moment in time or some set of circumstances under which even solid liberals move away from the two state solution?

Israeli-Palestinian Hip Hop Duo Back in the USA

Charles Lenchner — 2009-03-31T20:21:00-07:00

Israeli-Palestinian Hip Hoppers Dam are back in New York on April 7th. Everyone knows Dam, right?

Palestine Education Project) presents
HOMELAND HIP HOP: A Benefit Show for the Indigenous Youth Delegation to Palestine

Tuesday, April 7, 2009. at Southpaw, 125 5th Ave, Park Slope Brooklyn.

8pm doors, 9pm show. $12 in advance, $15 at the door.

All proceeds will go directly to support the delegation of indigenous youth, artists, and youth organizers traveling to Palestine this coming August.

For those of you who aren't hip enough to know DAM, they are:

...the first Palestinian hip hop group. Based in Israel, DAM was founded in 1999 by brothers Tamar and Suhell Nafar and their friend Mahmoud Jreri. The group's name is the Arabic verb for "to last forever/eternity" (دام) and the Hebrew word for "blood" (דם), but can also be an acronym for "Da Arabic MCs."

You can listen to some tracks on their official site, here.

It's better of course, to watch a video of them performing. Keep in mind, this is raw. (You might want to skip forward to 0:40 - the first bit is boring subtitles.)

The Palestine-Israel Education Project brings American and Palestinian youth together for cross cultural exchange. Learn more about them here: http://www.thinkpep.net/.

On Being Pro-Israel

Charles Lenchner — 2009-03-31T05:05:00-07:00

It came to my attention recently that some readers think that this site is anti-Israel. Can I say that this news comes as a surprise? Not at all. But it's worth looking into.

There are many countries around the world that commit human rights abuses, start wars, and elect nationalist politicians who spout half baked ideas. But only one of them regularly has to face the world and say: despite my faults, I deserve to exist. Sudanese diplomats are never faced with this problem. Even at the height of the Cambodian genocide or the Burmese suppression of democracy, it was never reasonable to call for the dissolution of those countries.

But the Israeli case is different. It was born in 1948 in a neighborhood calling loudly for the infant nation to be strangled immediately. In 1967, after it defeated the combined armies of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, the Arab world still gave a resounding 'No!' to the very notion of coexistence. To this day, even as respectable leaders of enemy states talk inspiringly of peace, very large numbers of the Arab citizenry admit that they can never accept Israel into the community of nations.

My political judgement is that the issues on the table can best be addressed with the pro-peace perspective espoused in many of the posts on this site. But as a human being, I also need to find a way to empathize with Israelis and Jewish supporters of Israel who feel the sting of such utter rejection more strongly. Could it be that this sting lies at the heart, or near it, of so many Israeli flaws? Might we not find it a valid explanation for the cruelty, reliance on military solutions, and hardened heart of the Israeli mainstream?

This idea that having your very right to exist questioned would still leave you in a rational state of mind, ready to give and take with Palestinian terrorists over future boundaries and long term security arrangements, is itself a little bit irrational. The whole discourse of the Palestinian solidarity movement is about forcing Israel to change through the application of pressure; Israeli consent is an afterthought, something to be secured after massive pressure has reduced them to a compliant, fearful mass eager to be rescued from isolation with the wave of a white flag.

For those of you defending the state of Israel with every rhetorical bullet in your arsenal - I salute you. It makes sense. Not that I agree of course. But there is a lesson for those of us who are both pro-Israel Jew and pro-Palestinian Arab. Supporting peace must always entail listening to the other side. Hearing the story and accepting that an emotional truth is being told, even if the facts are a bit mushy. It's possible (if not probable) that a world in which Israel did not have to wake up each day forced to defend its very existence might also see an Israel more willing to make sacrifices for peace.

I'm not anti-Israel. Just pro-peace. At this particular moment in time, that forces me to join those pressuring Israel to change its behavior. I do think though, that this can be done with sensitivity and even love, as opposed to anger and hate.

Land Day Roundup - Reports from Palestine

Charles Lenchner — 2009-03-30T20:07:00-07:00

Global Voices Online has an excellent post on Land Day. I wish I had written it.

Listen to a great, short piece on Land Day events over at Free Speech Radio Network

Jonathan Cook, a blogger and journalist working from Nazareth, brings forth the words of an eyewitness to the events in 1976 that Land Day commemorates:

“Maybe its significance is surprising given the magnitude of other events in Palestinian history,” said Hatim Kanaaneh, 71, a doctor, who witnessed the military invasion of his village.

“But what makes Land Day resonate with Palestinians everywhere is that it was the first time Palestinians inside Israel stood together and successfully resisted Israel’s goal of confiscating their land.”

[photo credit: Palestine Chronicle.]

What I find interesting is the absence of a formal defense of Israeli actions in 1976 anywhere on the web or on Israeli news sites. Given the significance of the day for the Palestinian cause, you'd think that someone would try to argue that Israeli confiscations of land from Palestinian owners in the 70s were perfectly reasonable policies that stand up to the test of time. Or that sending in the IDF to deal with unarmed protesters is sound security policy.

On the other hand, I rarely hear Palestinian solidarity activists echo the political demands of Israeli Palestinians, namely the demand for a two state solution. I'm not sure it's entirely kosher to hold this community up for its heroism in 1976 while neglecting it's political demands and worldview.

This is especially relevant with an Israeli government that includes Lieberman. One of his demands is to alter the borders of Israel so as to place Israeli Palestinians on the other side, where the West Bank lies. Israeli Palestinians attack this position as racist and fascist, and instead demand the right to remain part of Israel, with equal rights for all.

This Land Day, I'm supporting the right of Israeli Palestinians to remain part of Israel.

Today is Land Day!

Charles Lenchner — 2009-03-30T05:15:00-07:00

Miftah has a good description of Land Day:

Land Day, known as ‘Youm al-Ard’ in Arabic, commemorates the bloody killing of six Palestinians in the Galilee on March 30, 1976 by Israeli troops during peaceful protests over the confiscation of Palestinian lands.
It has since become a painful reminder of Israeli injustice and oppression against the Palestinian people, and a day for demonstration linking all Palestinians in their struggle against occupation, self-determination and national liberation.

This is one of the highlights in the Palestinian national calendar, along with the 29th of November (Nakba Day), and September 13th (Sabra and Shatila anniversary). Land Day is special though; it's the unique contribution of Palestinians in Israel, sometimes called '48 Arabs, who suffered for years as the forgotten and marginalized Palestinians.

Some argued that they were guilty of remaining in Palestine, or that by remaining they had compromised their honor, or that the comprimises made just to survive as a minority in the Jewish state had made them less authentically Palestinian. In the 1970s, they gained much political freedom, as the military rule they lived under during the 60s was lifted, while at the same time they could have much more interaction with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

One result was a ferment among the younger generation, who grew up in the shadow of the Nakba, but were not of age themselves when it took place. By 1976 this ferment had taken the form of a widespread fightback against Israel's continued land expropriations of Arab land for the explicit purpose of building Jews-only towns and villages.

Of course, the struggle didn't begin in 1976, but it represented a major political and social achievement. The Communist Party of Israel had successfully peeled away enough of the Palestinian population into grassroots political coalitions that it emerged as the dominant force in Palestinian politics until the 90s. As the Communist Party (later part of Hadash, a coalition parliamentary faction) was in support of a two state solution, Israeli Palestinians can justly claim to being the leaders of the diplomatic effort.

After all, they stood firm for this solution when large majorities of both Israeli Jews and Palestinians outside of Israel rejected it. Even today, as efforts are underway to argue against the two state solution, all of the parties that Palestinians vote for in the Knesset are formally committed to it.

Here's a list of actions related to today.

I can say with pride that I've demonstrated a number of times to commemorate Land Day, in Taibeh, Nazareth, and Um al-Fahm (the heroes of Land Day in 1976). As the years went by, it was sad to see the unity of 1976 by open hostility between the Muslim Brotherhood followers and the Hadash folks. Not sure what it's been like recently though. If you have any links to good reporting about today from Israel or Palestine, put something in the comments section.

Code Pink Hiring: Work on Israel/Palestine

Charles Lenchner — 2009-03-29T10:34:00-07:00

CODEPINK Job Opening: Palestine/Israel/Gaza Contract Position
We are seeking a resourceful, passionate, positive campaigner to help coordinate our efforts to support the women of Gaza and forge relationships between Israeli, American, and Palestinian peace activists and citizens.

Key skills:
- Excellent communication skills. Your writing should be personable and succinct. You are energetic and it translates through the phone!
- Grace under fire and a keen eye for detail.
- Willing to do what it takes to see a project through and handle multiple tasks well.
- At ease with technology. You don't have to know a lick of HTML, but you should know what it is.
- A peaceful person at heart! You work well with all types of people.
- Leadership potential or experience. You start projects, rally people, inspire others.
- Hard worker and self reliant. Flexible hours work for you and you manage your time independently.

Time duration:
-ASAP to end of May

-full or part time/salary to reflect experience and hours beginning at $2,000 a month
-Contract position

Key Responsibilities:
-Outreach to and build relationships with Israeli and Palestinian peace groups in Israel, West Bank, and Gaza (we have already established many contacts in Gaza), with a focus on women's groups
-Organize activities during Obama's trip in April
-Coordinate another delegation to Gaza with Israel component (possibly by land from Egypt and Israel and coordinated with Free Gaza flotilla)
-Follow up with participants from 60 person CODEPINK delegation to Gaza
-Coordinate actions around AIPAC national conference in DC in early May

Qualifications:
-Understanding of the political landscape in Israel, Palestine, US relations; basic knowledge of peace groups in the region/US
- Prior travel to the region (not required, but a plus)
- Familiarity with fundraising preferred
- Computer skills required --- must be familiar with MS Word, Excel, Adobe Acrobat. Knowledge of email listserves, online research, posting to online calendars and forms, Flickr, Twitter, Facebook is preferred. Familiarity with Google tools a must.

How to Apply:
-To apply send cover letter and resume to jodieevans@gmail.com with the subject Gaza Coordinator Position.
-The position will be filled as soon as a qualified candidate is identified, so send in your application asap.